Brendan Eich resigns as Mozilla Corporation CEO

Perhaps the problem here is that you think people who seek to deny others human rights are a part of a civil society. They aren't. They are actively seeking to destroy society by revoking security and happiness from it's members. Brendan Eich and his ilk are a cancer on society, damaging and disrupting the healthy parts. You don't seek to cooperate with cancer, you seek to remove it.

Out of curiosity. How to effect this removal from society : Banishment to a special place so they cannot be heard? Or forbidden to procreate so they die out? Or ...

Calling for the removal of a group of people, as a start from society, is historically a popular intro to pain and death. Last century used by some of the biggest homophobics around. Why seek their company?

This is a discussion or has it gone on to retribution?

By doing what we're doing now. Shaming them and educating them that what they do and attempt to force on others is wrong and unacceptable, thus lessening their impact with each generation.

Bigots are already looked down on a thousand times more than they were 70 years ago, and I hope in another 70 years the kind of things Eich supports will be so digusting no one even wants to talk about them.

Oh I'd expect that gay marriage will be much more widely accepted long before. Probably won't happen by calling everyone who disagrees a bigot and wishing them removed. Will happen by wining the majority vote. Which is done individually as is helping/donating to win that vote by either you or mr Eich.

So mr Eich has not done anything wrong by voting and supporting his views. But punishing mr Eich for not thinking/voting/donating the "right" way is. The same as if you were forced out for actively disagreeing with him. Both have a right to their opinion and to actively support that opinion, through voting/donating, not punishment.

Perhaps the problem here is that you think people who seek to deny others human rights are a part of a civil society. They aren't. They are actively seeking to destroy society by revoking security and happiness from it's members. Brendan Eich and his ilk are a cancer on society, damaging and disrupting the healthy parts. You don't seek to cooperate with cancer, you seek to remove it.

Out of curiosity. How to effect this removal from society : Banishment to a special place so they cannot be heard? Or forbidden to procreate so they die out? Or ...

Calling for the removal of a group of people, as a start from society, is historically a popular intro to pain and death. Last century used by some of the biggest homophobics around. Why seek their company?

This is a discussion or has it gone on to retribution?

By doing what we're doing now. Shaming them and educating them that what they do and attempt to force on others is wrong and unacceptable, thus lessening their impact with each generation.

Bigots are already looked down on a thousand times more than they were 70 years ago, and I hope in another 70 years the kind of things Eich supports will be so digusting no one even wants to talk about them.

Oh I'd expect that gay marriage will be much more widely accepted long before. Probably won't happen by calling everyone who disagrees a bigot and wishing them removed. Will happen by wining the majority vote. Which is done individually as is helping/donating to win that vote by either you or mr Eich.

So mr Eich has not done anything wrong by voting and supporting his views. But punishing mr Eich for not thinking/voting/donating the "right" way is. The same as if you were forced out for actively disagreeing with him. Both have a right to their opinion and to actively support that opinion, through voting/donating, not punishment.

Spoken like someone trying out for the Idiot Awards.

Eich "has not done anything wrong..." Working to take away the rights of a minority to equality under law, is as wrong as it gets, even if it's not strictly illegal.

"...not punishment." What the flying fark do you call taking away a right that a minority had just won in court? If that's not punishment, then I'm a kangaroo. This is what puts you in the running for an Idiot Award. Good luck!

This is the real issue though. The degree of anti-X that people see in campaigns. It appears the pro gay community sees prop 8 as the Klan. It's more like an Anti Affirmative action campaign. Which Black groups in the past attacked for being anti black, yet as a position has reasons to be supported outside of simple racial hatred.

The pro gay community turning everything into an extreme will only cause more division in society. They asked for tolerance, yet they do not give it.

It's probably for the better, too, at least as far as Mozilla Foundation is concerned. They can't be seen as having someone who has certain viewpoints be the helm of their organization, regardless if he can "separate personal opinions from his work". That just doesn't really work out. Your opinions affect almost everything that you do, but worse, they affect how OTHERS interact with you.

They can't go around with the stigma that Mozilla is the organization that kept a bigot as a CEO. They just can't.

Do you honestly think he would have been forced out if had donated to a group in favor of gay marriage? It just shows that bias is alive and well in Silicon Valley.

You're an idiot, plain and simple, if you think there is ANYTHING similar between the two positions, or that fighting to enshrine rights is anything like fighting to deny a group of people rights. Think before you speak next time.

Who said the two positions were similar? You're the only one saying that. But the fact that one point of view is celebrated, and other vilified, proves my point.

So the views of Martin Luther King and George Wallace circa 1963 are equally valid?

I don't believe I said that either, but feel free to quote me if I did.

It's probably for the better, too, at least as far as Mozilla Foundation is concerned. They can't be seen as having someone who has certain viewpoints be the helm of their organization, regardless if he can "separate personal opinions from his work". That just doesn't really work out. Your opinions affect almost everything that you do, but worse, they affect how OTHERS interact with you.

They can't go around with the stigma that Mozilla is the organization that kept a bigot as a CEO. They just can't.

Do you honestly think he would have been forced out if had donated to a group in favor of gay marriage? It just shows that bias is alive and well in Silicon Valley.

You're an idiot, plain and simple, if you think there is ANYTHING similar between the two positions, or that fighting to enshrine rights is anything like fighting to deny a group of people rights. Think before you speak next time.

Who said the two positions were similar? You're the only one saying that. But the fact that one point of view is celebrated, and other vilified, proves my point.

So the views of Martin Luther King and George Wallace circa 1963 are equally valid?

I don't believe I said that either, but feel free to quote me if I did.

Then perhaps you would like to clarify your apparently vague position. As it appears right now, you seem to be equating the removal of civil rights with the support of civil rights, which looks like a lot of newthink. If we have perceived that incorrectly, you are free to corret us.

The same could be said for those that wanted him gone in the first place. It works both ways.

Look, the whole "if you're intolerant of intolerance then you're the real bigot" thing has already been done to death.

It doesn't "work both ways". It's not a freedom of speech issue. The amount of equivocation some are willing to subject themselves to in order to either justify their own bigotry - or a ridiculous subscription to 'both sides of an argument are valid' - is exhausting.

You read way more into that reply than was there. Nice of you to generalize though.

The same could be said for those that wanted him gone in the first place. It works both ways.

Look, the whole "if you're intolerant of intolerance then you're the real bigot" thing has already been done to death.

It doesn't "work both ways". It's not a freedom of speech issue. The amount of equivocation some are willing to subject themselves to in order to either justify their own bigotry - or a ridiculous subscription to 'both sides of an argument are valid' - is exhausting.

You read way more into that reply than was there. Nice of you to generalize though.

No, you said that not accepting intolerance is the same thing as being intolerant. This is called false equivalency and it's patently wrong. Mark_oo was spot on in his response.

The US Supreme Court just ruled that political donations are free speech. No free speech for Eich.

This "point" has been addressed over and over, but people who are unable to do much but repeat talking points keep ignoring it. Freedom of speech protects you from government oppression. Freedom of speech does not equal freedom from facing consequences from non governmental entities for exercising your free speech when said speech is designed to oppress and take rights away another group.

Ironic... looks like only one view was suppressed, along with the 52% of Californians (a blue liberal state the last time I checked) who agreed.

ONLY ONE VIEW GETS SUPPRESSED: support for traditional marriage.

According to whose "tradition"? Whose perspective?

According to the tradition of the one who designed male and female, with all due respect.

You mean the Bible, which supports the tradition of polygamy? And the tradition of daughters raping their father and bearing children from such a union?

Edit: oh hey, I just had a moment of clarity! These examples, and more, from the bible must be why so many people who use religion to deny gays equal rights use the slippery slope argument of polygamy, incest, and bestiality as "logical" next steps! They get the ideas from their holy book.

The US Supreme Court just ruled that political donations are free speech. No free speech for Eich.

Which government agency or official was involved in this situation?

Which agency of the government deployed their mind-control ray to compel him to resign from his position?

None of them. This was not a "free speech" issue.

Ever.

You trolls keep rolling out this ridiculous argument, over and over again, no matter how many times it's explained to you. So let's try it in a larger font. (with thanks to Garrett Morris)

FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME: nobody, absolutely nobody, anywhere in this entire discussion, has tried to deny Eich's right to express himself. But taking part in public discourse means OTHER PEOPLE also have a right to express their opinions about you and what you do.

The only person in this equation who tried to take away anyone else's rights is Brendan Eich, and the people he attacked countered his action with some speech of their own.

Ironic... looks like only one view was suppressed, along with the 52% of Californians (a blue liberal state the last time I checked) who agreed.

ONLY ONE VIEW GETS SUPPRESSED: support for traditional marriage.

According to whose "tradition"? Whose perspective?

According to the tradition of the one who designed male and female, with all due respect.

...Meaning no respect for anyone else. You are free to believe that God ordained that all other forms of love and partnership are sinful and wrong, but you are not free to try to force governments to support your religious worldview.

His job was to represent a company in the public eye. His views did NOT represent that company or it's employees. It didn't cost him his job, it was just brought to light that he was unfit for his job.

So you know what most employees in Mozilla think and believe?

Last time I checked Mozilla is a software company, not a sexuality company.

And yes, it did cost him his job. He is unable to perform a higher ranking position and was downgraded for this, if not in the following months it will cost him the job. Not to mention other companies will not hire him to avoid similar internet mob campaigns.

Some people have destroyed his career. That is what they did. I hope people that contributed receive back all the discrimination they send on the Internet. Because things tend to come back in live...

He is responsible for his actions. No one could've destroyed this man's career without his help.

I liked this site when there were lots of interesting and factually correct articles and where the members had intellectual conversations based on facts and arguments. And where it was ok when people had different views and when one person thought the other was wrong, (s)he would try to convince the other by educating the other with facts, in favor of their own stance and against the stance of the other person.

But now ... "let's name and shame them" seems to be the mantra. Not only by a LOT of commenters in this thread, but also by the hate campaign driven by this and no less then 6 other articles in a little over a week by the author Sam Machkovech. Apparently it doesn't matter that he reports FACTUALLY INCORRECT* things. But hey, everything is allowed in a hate campaign, especially if it generates lots of page views, right?

I will miss the articles by (especially) Lee Hutchinson and also Jon Brodkin. They wrote interesting, informative, factually correct articles and quite often followed with interesting and civilized discussions.To Sam Machkovech I only have this to say: Go back to playing and/or writing about video/board games, since real journalism is FAR out of your reach.

What exactly happened with the board? You had 60 percent of your board step down [three out of five]. You got one new board member, so you're back up to three. What was going on there? What were the issues that led so many people to step down all at once, right as you were taking over as CEO?Eich: It was two weeks ago, before the CEO appointment. Three board members ended their terms for a variety of reasons. Two were planning to leave for some time. Ellen Siminoff [CEO of online education company Schmoop] was planning to leave since late last year, another one was going to leave at the end of the CEO search. And John Lilly left for a variety of reasons. John was CEO and was busy with venture capital relationships Greylock [Partners]. John had done a ton of work for Mozilla at some cost to his partnership.

If you still think that I need to look up what Freedom of Speech is, please enlighten me.The best way to do that is rebut the points I've made through clear arguments supported by facts/links. Not your (emotional) opinion.

lots of downvotes but NO ONE has taken on my offer to enlighten me. Exactly as I thought would happen.

As for the people equating Freedom of Speech to protection from government oppression,I have news for you that will probably totally shake your world view:The USA is NOT the only country in the world! That also means that the first amendment of the US Constitution doesn't apply to the whole world.

Think about that for a moment before you accuse others of failed reading comprehension and/or ask them to go look up what Freedom of Speech is!

And now my own opinion on (gay) marriage:I'm a big supporter of when 2 consenting adults want to publicly announce their love for one another and be allowed to legally represent one another. I don't want to call that marriage, since it has lots of religious connotations with it and/or 'historical meaning'. In Dutch we have a very good word for it: "samenlevings overeenkomst".I think it's ridiculous that marriage for some reason entitles you to more then a "samenlevings overeenkomst" (still!).And I'm ashamed that in The Netherlands a marriage officiant is allowed to NOT perform the marriage between gay people because it conflicts with their religious believes. (They are employed by the government but are allowed to refuse to do their job (and thereby execute the LAW), because of religion? WTF??)

So yes, I think Brendan Eich's personal opinion on gay marriage is wrong, but I also believe that he is entitled to that opinion. And that he is also entitled to express that opinion, through voting/donating money/etc. You don't agree with his opinion? Argue with him through arguments, reasoning, etc. Educate him.

But a "name, shame and hate campaign" towards someone because you don't agree with someone's opinion (or a whole group of people because of prejudiced/brainwashed ideas towards them (think muslims))?

No, I don't want ANYTHING to do with that.

So, bye Ars. It has been interesting, insightful, educational and sometimes also fun. But apparently no more.

Hahaha the idiots with their political correctness. Let's imagine a guy that makes the best pies in the whole city. But he is a nazi. Now he donates to nazi causes, goes to rallies etc. But he makes the best pies in the city. He is the perfect man for that job. Do you fire him in the name of political correctness? Because if you do you will only get second-rate pies. He is not gassing Jews but he fantasizes about that. He gives money to people who say that when they get into power they will gas Jews.

Now let's extend that to whole industries. You don't let the best man for the job in that role because of his beliefs. What if there is another country that doesn't have these issues and lets people in the right role based on objectively measured skills. That country will be stronger even if it will not necessarily be more moral or correct in issues of equality and yada yada. And in the end it will have better guns and a better army. And it will fuck the politically correct country out of existence.

Now do you understand why I don't give a shit about political correctness? It makes you weak. And weak gets killed by strong.

Oh I'd expect that gay marriage will be much more widely accepted long before. Probably won't happen by calling everyone who disagrees a bigot and wishing them removed. Will happen by wining the majority vote. Which is done individually as is helping/donating to win that vote by either you or mr Eich.

So mr Eich has not done anything wrong by voting and supporting his views. But punishing mr Eich for not thinking/voting/donating the "right" way is. The same as if you were forced out for actively disagreeing with him. Both have a right to their opinion and to actively support that opinion, through voting/donating, not punishment.

Spoken like someone trying out for the Idiot Awards.

Eich "has not done anything wrong..." Working to take away the rights of a minority to equality under law, is as wrong as it gets, even if it's not strictly illegal.

"...not punishment." What the flying fark do you call taking away a right that a minority had just won in court? If that's not punishment, then I'm a kangaroo. This is what puts you in the running for an Idiot Award. Good luck!

I'm quite sure mr Eich personally thinks his vote and support were good. But he and the other voters were wrong, because expressing their opinion and voting freely is "not strictly illegal" according to you. Of course only if their vote or opinion is wrong, not agrees with you. Thus we (mere mortals) best bow to your approval to avoid being so borderline illegal. In that case you are right and mr Eich and the voters are wrong.

Sorry, on my continent no kangaroo’s. The best of luck to you in conveying those pesky voters they behaved "not strictly illegal”. They really think they can vote like they want and it counts. You tell them differenly!

wow, I didn't know he co-founded the company too. What's the world coming to if someone can't run their own company based on personal beliefs that do not even compromise his/her ability to do so? I actually kind of feel bad for the guy.

Great, so mozilla got fucked twice. First they lose users (that probably never coming back) over people calling for boycotts rather than trying to engage mozilla more constructively. Now they don't get the most qualified person to be their CEO. Hope you guys are happy.

Before you up-vote this, read who Orson Scott Card is. He is quite the extremist who believes that homosexual behavior should be prosecuted.

Edit: spelling and grammar.

I would actually encourage you not to boycott the books Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead even if you completely despise Orson Scott Card. Those two books actually have as their central message the value of tolerance, love, and attempting to understand behaviors which may seem abhorrent due to a lack of complete information/comprehension.

Seriously, the first time I read Speaker for the Dead, it actually made me sob when I finally understood the alien Pequeninos.

Those two books are masterful and an interesting contrast to the apparent views of their author.

Yes indeed; I was utterly gob-smacked when I learned about OSC's activist opposition to gay rights -- it's very odd that he somehow fails to understand how that goes against the principles he so ably portrays in his novels.

The US Supreme Court just ruled that political donations are free speech. No free speech for Eich.

He made a donation, he exercised his free speech rights, no one stopped him. Free speech does not mean being immune to the rejection of bigoted viewpoints.

Again, the failure of our education system is monumental

I tend think of the average Ars reader to be generally pretty intelligent, curious and perhaps with a college education and a degree.

However, the utter lack of logical reasoning and comprehension of the United States Constitution most sacred protection, equality, and complete misunderstanding of the First Amendment that has been put on display here the last week has been stunning.

When did the protection from the government to control speech become equated with never being judged by fellow citizens for the quality or intent of speech?

Edit. If you disagree with the above and voted it down, your a censoring hypocrite. Just saying.

Hahaha the idiots with their political correctness. Let's imagine a guy that makes the best pies in the whole city. But he is a nazi. Now he donates to nazi causes, goes to rallies etc. But he makes the best pies in the city. He is the perfect man for that job. Do you fire him in the name of political correctness? Because if you do you will only get second-rate pies. He is not gassing Jews but he fantasizes about that. He gives money to people who say that when they get into power they will gas Jews.

If I'm the owner I would fire his ass if his views are actively hurting my business - which by your logic would make my store "weak" because I'm not making money. Which is the case here for Mozilla too.

Yeah, the strong takes out the weak, and Mozilla made itself weak by pointing him as CEO because it made employees (valueable resources) unhappy and customers boycotting the browser which meant less bussiness - all "weakening" the company, so it was necessary to rid of him. Hey your logic worked, thanks!